Page:Instead of a Book, Tucker.djvu/322

not need to lean upon the broken reed that Mr. Tucker supplies in his "if
its result would remain intact, the field lying idle," etc. He knows it could
not remain intact, for such field would grow up in grubs and the fences
would decay during idleness; but it does not follow that the field would lie
idle because not rented, nor would my loss in that case be a just reason
why I should not share in the fructification of my past labor by another
man's actual labor. (10) My illustration of the mechanism and conditions
of the productivity of capital stands for itself and by itself; it is not a
gloze or commentary upon Proudhon. His ideas and mine both harmonize
with the facts of the case; that is our agreement: it is not an affair of
mere verbiage.

The field in question owed its whole productivity to my previous labor.
Other land contiguous was free to my tenant's occupation and use, but
though of equal original capacities was rejected by him as a non-value.
This is true of most agricultural land. Only by contiguity to cities, or
in certain exceptional sites, has land any appreciable value independent of
labor, in this country.

I stated that, in making a crop upon the basis of values accumulated in
the soil by my previous labor, the tenant, paying one-fourth, profited
three times as much by my previous labor as I did. This is the conventional
award to his season's labor; it may be more or less than relative
justice, but conventional rules or customs are infinitely preferable to
arithmetical computations of a balance by the hours of labor. Farmers are not
apt to be monomaniacs of bookkeeping. Instead of profited, I might
have written shared. The term profit touches a hyperæsthetic spot in the
socialist brain, and makes thought fly off at a tangent, (11) Mr. Tucker's
commentary here is to me a mere muddle of phrases, which it does not
appear profitable to analyze.

There is no squint in our use of the word Anarchy. There is a squint

in employing it as a synonym with confusion. (12)

Edgeworth.⁠

(1) This smacks of Henry George. If the municipality is
an organization to which every person residing within a given
territory must belong and pay tribute, it is not a bit more
defensible than the State itself,—in fact, is nothing but a small
State; and to vest in it a title to any part of the value of real
estate is simply land nationalization on a small scale, which no
Anarchist can look upon with favor. If the municipality is
a voluntary organization, it can have no titles except what it
gets from the individuals composing it. If they choose to
transfer their "unearned increments" to the municipality, well
and good; but any individual not choosing to do so ought to
be able to hold his "unearned increment " against the world.
If it is unearned, certainly his neighbors did not earn it. The
advent of Liberty will reduce all unearned increments to a
harmless minimum.

(2) There it is again. After admitting that I do not want
to impose this principle of exchange, why does Edgeworth
remind me that it must be "subordinate," etc.? When forced
to a direct answer, he allows that I am not in favor of legal